Energy Development’s Impacts on the Wildlife, Landscapes, and Hunting Traditions of the American West.

1. wildlife are an ecological marker for the health of non-
game species, which are also becoming increasingly
vulnerable to the effects of energy development.
Bountiful wildlife populations are a major part of the
cultures and economies of Montana and Wyoming.
Deteriorations in habitat quality associated with
energy development can negatively affect wildlife
populations and, in turn, impact hunters, wildlife-
watchers, and the tourism industry as a whole, which
brings millions of people and billions of dollars to
the region every year. These impacts justify the need
for land management reforms and for wide-scale
investments in game and non-game wildlife protection
he iconic game species of the American
West are in perilous decline, as migratory
animals lose ground to energy development
and habitat destruction in southeast Montana and
northeast Wyoming. Sage-grouse, mule deer, and
pronghorn are facing decreasing herd sizes and
downward long-term population trends, which
threaten the continued viability of these species in
the coming decades. Of the species considered, only
elk populations are forecast to rebound and stabilize
from historic lows, though there is significant concern
that additional habitat loss or degradation from
energy development could stall population growth and
further displace the species. Simultaneously, big game
Losing Ground:
T
Losing Ground
Barbara Wheeler
Energy Development’s Impacts on the Wildlife, Landscapes, and
Hunting Traditions of the American West
A Report by the National Wildlife Federation and the Natural
Resources Defense Council

2. at state and federal levels to offset the increasing
impact on wildlife from energy development.
A study commissioned by the National Wildlife
Federation and the Natural Resources Defense
Council analyzes trends in population and hunting
opportunities for mule deer, pronghorn, elk, and
greater sage-grouse. This report, written by NWF and
NRDC, builds on the data in context of the intense
energy development in the study area. Factors
assessed in determining the ratings include population
trends, harvest trends, hunter trends, and female to
young ratios.1 The top findings include:
Jack Dempsey
A study commissioned by the
National Wildlife Federation and
the Natural Resources Defense
Council analyzes trends in population
and hunting opportunities for mule
deer, pronghorn, elk, and greater
sage-grouse.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
1 Criteria evaluated for each herd unit (Wyoming) and hunting district (Montana) included: 2012 values for young/100 female ratios and a
comparison to the long-term average for young /100 female ratios; Long-term trend for young/100 female ratios; 2012 values for male harvest
and a comparison to the long-term average for male harvest; Long-term trend for male harvest; 2012 values for total hunters and a comparison
to the long-term average for total hunters; Long term trend for total hunters; To a lesser extent, estimates for population size were also assessed
and were compared to established population objectives for each herd, when available. Ellenberger J. H. and A. E. Byrne. 2015. Population
status and trends of big game and sage grouse in Southeast Montana and Northeast Wyoming. Unpub. Report for NWF. 244 pp.
Losing Ground2

3. • Only one mule deer herd unit of the eight units
evaluated, Wyoming herd unit 751 (Black Hills),
received a healthy rating. Notably, the Black Hills
unit is the only one without any energy development
within its boundaries.
• 12 pronghorn herds were examined in this analysis,
11 were rated, and only 3 received a good rating.2
• The long-term trend for harvest of pronghorn has
been decreasing for eight of the 12 herds examined.
For example, Montana herd unit 704 recorded a
total harvest of 222 pronghorn in 2012. This is the
lowest harvest reported for the herd unit in 24 years,
representing only 12% of the 1,800 animals harvested
in 1994.
Carolyn Malone
Losing Ground 3
2 One herd in Montana wasn’t rated due to lack of data.

4. Losing Ground4
• In Wyoming, sage-grouse are a species in decline, as
population numbers have been on a downward trend
since 2006.
• Active sage-grouse leks, or “strutting grounds”
used for mating, are twice as far from coal bed natural
gas wells and 1.5 times as far from power lines as
inactive leks.3
Recommendations
Following our review of the study, here are NRDC’s
and NWF’s recommendations:
• Accelerate implementation of the Department of
Interior’s proposed land management reforms aimed
at protecting areas of high wildlife conservation values,
particularly the Bureau of Land Management Planning
2.0 program; use of Master Leasing Plans; and other
initiatives that encourage a district-wide “look before
you leap” approach to energy development and
habitat protection. Encourage cross-border planning
among state BLM offices to address impacts on
migratory wildlife.
• Significantly expand the national level of wildlife
conservation funding investments for game and non-
game species at the scale that meets the devastating
impacts caused by current and future energy
development – including full funding for the Land
and Water Conservation Fund, State Wildlife Grant
programs, and others.
3 Naugle et al 2006.
4 Ellenberger and Byrne 2015.
5 Projections made based on assumption of continued development.
6 NE Wyoming Local Working Group 2014.
4
5
6

5. Losing Ground 5
• Ensure the strong and consistent implementation
of the Clean Water Rule, which will restore wildlife
habitat protections for hundreds of thousands of miles
of streams, tens of millions of acres of wetlands, and
other vitally important waters that have been at risk
since Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006.
• Strengthen the Office of Surface Mining’s proposed
Stream Protection Rule by fully protecting ephemeral
streams, maintaining the stream buffer zone that
has been in place since 1983, strengthening bonding
requirements, and ensuring that water quality
standards are directly enforceable under SMCRA.
• Substantially raise the federal coal
and oil and gas royalty rates from
the decades old level of 12½%, and
redirect a portion for the mitigation
of wildlife habitat impacts.
• Comprehensively reform
the federal coal and oil and gas
programs, especially concerning
leasing compatibility with
national climate policy, and to
address weak reclamation and
bonding requirements.
• Require individual bonds
for all oil and gas operations set
at a site-specific estimated cost
of reclamation.
• Enact pending legislation to
eliminate the oil and gas industry
exemptions from important
provisions of the Safe Drinking
Water Act, Clean Water Act, and
other environmental protection
laws that have contributed to surface
and underground water pollution,
air pollution, and dangerous waste
management methods that impact
wildlife and communities.
• Enact the bipartisan Public Lands Renewable
Energy Act that improves renewable energy facility
siting to protect wildlife, and redirects a portion of
the renewable industry’s federal royalties for the
mitigation of wildlife habitat impacts.
• Ensure consistent and sound implementation of the
collaborative federal and state sage-grouse protection
initiatives that will help rebuild greater sage-grouse
populations and conserve sagebrush habitat, which
supports more than 350 species, including pronghorn,
mule deer, and elk.
Note: The study focuses on southeast Montana and northeast Wyoming.
Within the study area, data was collected and analyzed on eight mule deer
herds (three in Montana and five in Wyoming); seven elk herds (three in
Montana and four in Wyoming); 12 pronghorn herds (three in Montana
and nine in Wyoming); and two greater sage-grouse management areas
(one in Montana and one in Wyoming). The data represents more than three
decades of records from 1980 to 2013.

6. Losing Ground6
Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife
Wildlife typically require particular environmental conditions
to successfully travel, feed, reproduce, and survive. The
places where these conditions exist – whether found in the
ocean, forest, grassland, or desert – are considered habitat.

7. Losing Ground 7
Energy Development and
Habitat Loss
Habitat loss associated with energy development
– coal mining, oil and gas fields, wind generation
– particularly impacts mule deer, pronghorn, and
sage-grouse populations. To the extent that energy
development continues to destroy wildlife habitat,
all species will be forced to exist on less and lower
quality land, leading to declines in population and
overall health. These downward trends don’t just
mean trouble for the species themselves, but also
for the hunting tradition that permeates the
American West.
Wildlife typically require particular environmental
conditions to successfully travel, feed, reproduce,
and survive. The places where these conditions exist
– whether found in the ocean, forest, grassland, or
desert – are considered habitat.
When habitats are threatened, so are the animals
within them. For example, sagebrush, the habitat of
sage-grouse, is often cleared in large segments for
energy projects. Removing sagebrush takes away the
primary food source, shelter, and breeding grounds
for sage-grouse, therefore jeopardizing their survival
in that area.
Energy development is expanding across the West.
While this study considers what impact energy
expansion and the resulting habitat loss could have
on some of our native species, it is not known what
the energy development impact could mean for
hunting or the economic benefits hunting brings to
communities in the West.
In Wyoming, over 11,000 producing gas wells are
shown in this map, along with more than 10,000 shut-in
and abandoned wells. Coalbed methane has undergone
a boom-and-bust cycle but extensive production
infrastructure remains in place.*
The Powder River Basin is a major U.S. coal producing
area and one of the world’s largest deposits of coal,
including the nation’s largest surface mine: Black
Thunder in Campbell County, Wyoming.**
* Coalbed Methane well data were obtained from the Montana
Board of Oil and Gas Conservation and the Wyoming Oil and
Gas Conservation Commission.
** Map data sources used were the U.S. Geological Survey’s
“Coal Fields of the Conterminous United States” and the
U.S. Energy Information Administration’s “Coal Mines,
Surface and Underground.”

8. Losing Ground8
Typical development of an area for oil and gas
exploration and production consists of the
construction of drill pads, roads, pipelines, compressor
stations, and wastewater ponds. In densely developed
areas, with one drill pad per 10 acres, the pads
and infrastructure can destroy up to 175 acres of
habitat, the equivalent of 133 football fields. In this
development scenario, habitat loss is both direct and
indirect. Direct loss includes the loss of land and forage
due to the actual construction of the oil or gas field
Energy Development 101
Energy development can be devastating to the
landscape. Surface vegetation and soils are often
removed. Water sources can be altered or depleted.
Transmission lines and roads can fragment
habitat, displace wildlife, and increase predation
and accidental wildlife deaths. Additionally, the
infrastructure (e.g., roads, pipelines, etc.) and
increased human presence on the landscape can have
devastating effects on wildlife in the area.
Ken Miracle
Habitat: The Most Important Component of
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation
Vast expanses of sagebrush are home to lek sites, or strutting
grounds, for male sage-grouse. Here, in order to attract partners,
sage-grouse commence their signature head-bobbing, neck-shaking,
feather-fluffing dance that leads to breeding. Long-term monitoring of
leks provides a wealth of invaluable historical and biological data
as male sage-grouse tend to return year after year to the same area.

9. Losing Ground 9
infrastructure. Indirect loss is due to animal avoidance
of a larger area around the zones of drilling activity
and infrastructure in an attempt to keep away from
human disturbance.7
Indirect loss of habitat due to animal avoidance of
human activity and structures is difficult to measure.
A study conducted near Pinedale, Wyoming, however,
involving mule deer and energy development shows
significant indirect impacts. In this study, 41% of the
areas previously reported as high use areas by deer
had changed to medium-low or low use.8 In addition,
areas with the highest deer use were at least 2.7 km
away from drill pads.9
While the impacts of poorly sited wind energy on birds
are well-documented, the impacts of wind energy
development on other wildlife are not as well known.
Few studies have been conducted on the impacts
of wind energy development on big game. This is
of particular concern considering the magnitude
of development that is proposed in some areas in
Wyoming.10 Given that wind energy development
includes road building, construction activities, and
increased human activity, it will likely have significant
temporary impacts similar to those occurring as a
result of oil and gas development, and displacement of
game species is likely to result,11 especially during the
construction phase.
Impacts of surface mining for coal on big game and
greater sage-grouse are significant and localized,
and, like other types of industrial development, the
concepts of direct and indirect habitat loss apply. By
definition, habitat is destroyed in a surface mining
operation by the removal of topsoil to access the
underlying coal. Additional habitat is disturbed by
the construction of infrastructure, which includes
7 Ellenberger and Byrne 2015.
8 Id.
9 Sawyer, H., R. M. Nielson, F. Lindzey, and L. McDonald. 2006. Winter habitat selection of mule deer before and during development of a
natural gas field. Journal of Wildlife Management 70: 396-403.
10 The ChokeCherry Sierra Madre Wind Project is sited in Carbon County, Wyoming, on 7,733 acres.
11 Kuvlesky, W. P. Jr., L. A. Brennan, M. L. Morrison, K. K. Boydston, B. M. Ballard and F. C. Bryant. 2007. Wind energy development and
wildlife conservation: challenges and opportunities. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(8):2487-2498.
Jeremy Roberts/Conservation Media, LLC.

10. Losing Ground10
1. Wildlife deaths at both individual and
species levels.14
2. Migration barriers and habitat isolation.15
3. Overcrowding of wildlife on remaining lands.16
4. Declines in population density. 17
This means that projections for expanded energy
development in the study area are a significant
concern for wildlife managers, and should be for
hunters, too. Intensive development for oil, natural
gas, wind, and coal has the potential to drastically
alter wildlife habitats in Montana and Wyoming.
haul roads, conveyor belt systems, administrative
and maintenance buildings, and piles of top soil.
The cumulative impacts of various types of energy
development across a landscape can wreak havoc
on wildlife. Oil and gas fields and coal surface mines
can extend over large segments of habitats. In these
situations, human-caused habitat fragmentation is a
serious concern.12 Fragmentation has two primary
components: (1) loss of natural habitat within a larger
landscape, and (2) division of the remaining natural
habitats into isolated patches.13 Effects of habitat
fragmentation on biological resources can include:
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
12 Ellenberger and Byrne 2015.
13 Wilcove, D. S., C. H. McLellan, and A. P. Dobson. 1986. Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone. Pages 237-256 in: M. E. Soule, ed.
Conservation Biology. The Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, Massachusetts; Bureau of Land Management
(BLM). 2003. Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Final EIS/Proposed RMP Amendment. Buffalo District, WY.
14 Noss, R. F., and B. Csuti. 1994. Habitat fragmentation. Pages 237-264 in: Meffe, G. K., and C.R. Carroll, eds. Principles of Conservation
Biology. Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, Massachusetts; Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2003. Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Final
EIS/Proposed RMP Amendment. Buffalo District, WY.
15 Id.
16 Lovejoy, T. E. , B. O. Bierregaard, Jr., A. B. Rylands, J. R. Malcolm, C. E. Quintela, L. H. Harper, K. S. Brown, Jr., A. H. Powell, G. V.
N. Powell, H. O. R. Schubart, and M. B. Hays, 1986. Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone. Pages 257-285 in: M. E. Soule, ed.
Conservation Biology. The Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, Massachusetts; Bureau of Land Management
(BLM). 2003. Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Final EIS/Proposed RMP Amendment. Buffalo District, WY.
17 Id.

11. Losing Ground 11
18 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, “Montana Leads States for Percentage of Hunters U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services”, Billings Gazette,
August 15, 2007.
19 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, “Montana Leads States for Percentage of Hunters U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services”, Billings Gazette,
August 15, 2007.
20 Lorna Thackeray, “Montana Tourism Revenue Takes Hit” Missoulian, 10/19/2008.
21 Montana Office of Tourism, 2014, http://www.voicesoftourism.com/tourisms-value/
22 Wyoming Office of Tourism, http://www.wyomingofficeoftourism.gov/media/110455/2014-Prelimnary.pdf
Declines in quality of habitat affect wildlife populations, hunters, wildlife-
watchers, and the tourism industry as a whole:
• Montana has the nation’s second highest wildlife-watching participation rate at 55%. Wyoming follows
closely behind at 48%.18
• Montana has the country’s highest hunting participation rate at 19%; Wyoming has the fifth highest rate
with 13%.19
• 10.6 million tourists travel through Montana annually,20
supporting 38,200 jobs and bringing in $3.9
billion to the economy.21
• In 2014, tourism in Wyoming created 31,510 jobs and generated a total of $3.33 billion.22
HannahRyan/IWJV

12. Losing Ground12
Conclusion
Western wildlife species can face drought, severe winters, and other naturally occurring factors that can impact their
populations. Today, energy development and associated infrastructure pose an ever-growing threat, as they drastically
affect wildlife by destroying habitat, interrupting migration paths, and removing key food sources. This kind of activity
can lead to isolation of remaining habitat, crowding of species onto remaining patches of viable habitat, and even the
elimination of species or individual animals that depended on the destroyed habitat.
Of the species addressed in the report, mule deer, sage-grouse, and pronghorn appear to be the most vulnerable to
energy development in the study area. The mule deer and pronghorn populations analyzed have shown declines in
population size, productivity, or both over the last three decades, and sage-grouse populations have deteriorated so
drastically that they were recently considered for listing under the Endangered Species Act.
These declines have direct impacts on hunters and hunting opportunity in the form of lower hunter success rates,
decreased harvest, possible decreases in trophy quality of harvested animals, and more conservative hunting seasons.
Continued habitat loss due to energy development can be expected to result in further reductions in populations and
productivity of the mule deer and pronghorn herds in question, which will likely result in increasingly conservative
hunting seasons and lower numbers of available licenses.23
As development continues to destroy wildlife habitat, these species are all forced to exist on less and lower quality
land. Continued, unconstrained energy exploration, development, and production throughout Montana and Wyoming
will lead to further declines in game populations and overall health as well as reduced hunting opportunities. To
counteract these threats, greater land management reforms must be put in place, and it is imperative that state and
federal governments increase their commitment to avoid or eliminate the impacts to wildlife and invest in wildlife
recovery and sustainability.
303 East
17th Ave., Ste. 15
Denver, CO 80203
www.nwf.org
317 E. Mendenhall St. Suite D
Bozeman, MT 59715
www.nrdc.org
For More Information
StevePerry
23 Ellenberger and Byrne 2015.